The Wellesley Wire

This is our final project in the form of a nightly news story! Enjoy

Obama's Comment About Middle America

In response to “bittergate,” both the New York Times and the Stump fall victim to the media firestorm that emerged surrounding Barack Obama's comment. Both sources by and large contribute to the “sound and fury signifying nothing” that resulted from a comment that, if made in Pittsburgh rather than San Francisco, what have come off as empathetic rather than elitist. If we were to glean a lesson about the media from this episode, it would be that even highly reputable sources such as the New York Times and the New Republic will bite, and in the Times case perpetuate, a story that ought not have made the news at all. Perhaps the domination of cable news in setting the tone and replaying the tape forced the hand of the New York Times and The Stump, leaving readers hoping for discussions of the economy, health care, and foreign-policy were sorely disappointed.

Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/us/politics/13campaign.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/us/politics/12campaign.html?scp=9&sq=obama+bitter&st=nyt
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/12/clinton-campaign-further-strengthens-the-democratic-party.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/12/the-bright-side-of-obama-s-gaffe.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/14/so-are-working-class-people-bitter-or-not.aspx

Mark Penn Quits

The New Republic has seemed to be a primary source for gossip from within the Clinton campaign. While the New York Times article on the Penn firing presented no unique content (in focused on background as familiar to anyone following the story, and gave a run-of-the-mill sound bite from Maggie Williams), the new Republic emerged with juicy details about both Penn’s rivalry with Harold Ickes and his power play under campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle. Despite its venerated status as the paper of record, the New York Times was less interesting and less informative when it came to Mark Penn.

Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05penn.html?fta=y
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/us/politics/07hillary.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=mark+penn&st=nyt&oref=login
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/11/is-mark-penn-the-new-quot-charlie-quot.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/09/does-it-matter-who-hillary-s-chief-strategist-is.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/07/is-penn-s-meeting-a-bigger-deal-than-goolsbee-s.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/06/mark-penn-out.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/28/penn-pals.aspx

Hillary's comment about Bosnia

The New York Times coverage Hillary's gaffe about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia is reflective of the mainstream media’s tendency to focus on horserace issues, including the impact that various mini-scandals have on public opinion. While the episode did cast doubt on Hillary’s credibility, the Times article failed to go much deeper than that and largely presented the story in a conventional way. The Stump, by contrast, used the Bosnia episode is an excuse to ignore the current election and debate the events of the mid-1990s. How well did the (Bill) Clinton administration perform in the Balkans, what role (if any) did Hillary play, and how could this shed light on her possible style as commander-in-chief? Because they are not obliged to cover the daily news, but are rather more focused on themes and trends, the Stump was able to use the Bosnia question as a launching pad to discuss issues of interest to them.

Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25clinton.html?_r=1&st=cse&sq=hillary+bosnia+lie&scp=3&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?scp=5&sq=clinton+bosnia+sniper&st=nyt
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/01/the-hillary-bosnia-mystery-cont-d.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/24/hillary-in-tuzla.aspx

Obama's Race Speech

The New York Times’ coverage of Barack Obama's race speech in Philadelphia was simple and to the point; it presented the context in which Obama gave the speech, focused mostly on the content and tone of the speech, and provided a little commentary from Doug Wilder, the first African-American governor since Reconstruction. Absent from the New York Times was the fearmongering of Fox news in the referring of MSNBC - the Times was focused on presenting the facts in the barest possible form. The Stump, by contrast, given the numerous political, historical, and sociological questions surrounding the speech, was at the top of its game. Several Stump writers wrote in-depth articles in addition to their blog posts, and the Stump aptly debated the choices Obama managed, the intellectual influences he drew upon, and the likelihood that his speech would resonate with various demographics of voters.

Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18wright.html?scp=6&sq=obama+race+speech&st=nyt
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/politics/19obama.html?fta=y
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/us/politics/20race.html?scp=7&sq=obama+race+speech&st=nyt
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/18/will-obama-s-speech-work.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/18/two-quickie-thoughts-about-the-obama-speech.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/18/obama-s-race-speech.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/17/obama-to-give-a-speech-on-race.aspx

Texas and Ohio Primaries

The New York Times’ coverage of the Texas and Ohio contests reflect their desire to report a good story, which sometimes comes at the expense of portraying accurate expectations. The Times's coverage of Clinton's “Big Wins for Clinton in Texas and Ohio” portrays Clinton as an underdog come back from the dead, while failing to mention that she, only two weeks before, led in both states by huge margins. The Times also fails to mention substantive dialogue that have been taking place over the past day for the primary, nor does it address the endorsements, especially in Ohio, who helped propel Clinton to victory. Finally, Obama gained ultimately one more delegates in Texas, rendering the headline “Big Wins” not only misleading, but actually false. The Stump’s coverage of the two primaries was surprisingly less insightful than usual, at showing the writers are less focused on horse race than the mainstream media and more focused on substance. The Stump’s content largely consisted of speculation as to who would win where, by how much, and why.
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/us/politics/05primary.html?scp=3&sq=texas+and+ohio&st=nyt
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12clinton.html?scp=7&sq=texas+and+ohio&st=nyt
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/05/hillary-wins-texas.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/latinos.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/over-there.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/stop-the-madness.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/two-things-to-keep-in-mind-about-texas.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/the-day-after.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/04/where-today-will-leave-us.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/03/does-hillary-want-to-lose-the-texas-caucuses.aspx

McCain's "lobbyist scandal"

The scandal over John McCain’s relationship Vicki is a model case of the media taking story too far. The New York Times published a story based largely on anonymous sources alleging a relationship between John McCain and female lobbyist. In addition to controversy over reliance on anonymous sources (one of whom was likely an embittered former aide), the Times was criticized by many - including its own ombudsman - for injecting the rumor of an adulterous relationship into a story that, even without any sexual content, what have been notable for the hypocrisy of McCain relationship with lobbyists given his leadership on questions of campaign finance and ethics reform. Finally, is sent a time of publication. The Times apparently had this story written at the tail end of 2007, chose not to run it until late February, when McCain was the presumptive nominee. This raises the question of journalistic ethics and partisanship, which led the New York Times heavily criticized by conservatives, including McCain himself.

The Stump’s role in this story, like many in the media, centered on analyzing not the events in question, but the Times’ coverage. The Stump’s observation that “The story reads to me like it had originally been much more ambitious, but had its guts ripped out somewhere along the way” is more media criticism than it has political commentary. Likewise, a longer piece by the new Republic's Gabe Sherman details the controversy over the Iseman story within the New York Times newsroom. Since the New York Times made the final mistake of making news rather than recording it, the Stump was reduced to critiquing The Times’ editorial decisions.

Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/24/why-are-conservatives-so-delusional-about-the-mccain-story.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/21/the-story-behind-the-times-s-mccain-story.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/20/mccain-bombshell.aspx

Obama Plagarism Scandal

In their coverage plagiarism scandal surrounding Senator Obama, the New York Times followed their usual quote-heavy style of presenting the story in terms of the arguments made by each candidate. The Times presents Clinton's accusations, tells the reader what Obama actually said and compares his statement to Deval Patrick’s 2006 speech, and presents Obama’s rebuttal to the charge. On balance, the coverage seems fair. One interesting element of the Times’ coverage by Jeff Zeleny, is the progression from the Times' own analysis on February 18 (headline of “An Obama Refrain Bears Echoes of a Governor’s Speeches”) the Times presenting Clinton's critique, albeit with Obama's rebuttal, on February 19 headline of “Clinton Camp Says Obama Plagiarized in Speech.”

The Stump’s coverage took a largely analytical view; the blog assumed leaders had knowledge of the basic information presented in the Times articles, and instead asked deeper questions. What does this attack mean for poll numbers among various demographics? Does it demonstrate Clinton's desperation? Given the proliferation of speechwriters and common rhetoric, does any candidate not plagiarize? While it did not address the issue in specific posts on the plagiarism scandal, The Stump could have also explored the relationship between Patrick and Obama, which includes their common message of hope, transcendence of partisan labels, racial backgrounds, experiences in Chicago and at Harvard Law, and reliance on political consultant David Axelrod – all interesting comparisons that would never have made the Times’ article.

Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/politics/19campaign.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1203457352-aO68KdGXPxZj65Q+FIMcgA
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/us/politics/18video.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=login
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/19/plagiarism-cont-d.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/18/quote-of-the-day-feb-18.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/18/the-plagiarism-charged-parsed.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/18/war-of-words.aspx
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/18/does-any-candidate-not-plagiarize.aspx

The next president? Ask a kid.

The Christian Science Monitor
"The next president? Ask a kid."
By Lisa Suhay
April 9th, 2008

Although it is very different to analyze an op-ed piece in the newspaper, this one stuck out enough to me that I thought I would share it. The article is written by an author of children's books and her main argument in the article is that kids are more aware of the subtleties of the candidates' personalities and that when many of us get to the voting booth we revert to children and vote based on these visceral emotions that we have about the candidates.

The author decided to interview kids in her town of Norfolk, VA. between the ages of 7-8 and made the observation that her town actually had quite a diverse population. She interviewed 14 different kids and the votes came down to John McCain 8 votes and Barack Obama 6 votes, Hillary Clinton zero votes. She also included sound bites from different kids. One child said about Senator McCain,

He looks really tough. I bet he's scary when he's mad.

Another child said about Hillary Clinton,

It's just not going to be a woman and if it was it'd be Oprah!

The article really bothered me. It was completely reliant on pop psychology and it made broad generalizations based on 14 children.

First of all she never mentioned how strongly children are affected by the opinions of the people around them, as well as the messages given to them in the media. Children are also completely indoctrinated in society's racial and gender stereotypes by the age of 7, unless they are completely sheltered from mainstream culture and society. Her thesis seems to be that when we as voters reach the booth we are,

So overwhelmed by all the conflicting information, slick ads, and responsibility of the action [we] are about to take that [we] just fall back on listening to [our] inner child.

While I agree that strange things happen in the voting booth, I don't think its our emotionally wise and perceptive inner child that comes out, rather its the voice of all the media's framing and the those slick campaign ads that ends up deciding who we vote for, whether we our aware of it or not.

I recognize that her article actually wasn't trying to imply that we vote for the best candidate or even the most honest, but I think that whatever her point was, it was lost in the article. Ms. Suhay ends her article saying,

Instead of putting millions of dollars a week into campaign ads and polls from now until November, maybe candidates should donate a chunk to early education programs. That way everybody wins.

While I don't disagree with the importance of giving money to education, her logic doesn't fit. Essentially she is saying that before the campaign adds and months of touring the country even gets started, the winner of the race is already pre-determined based on how we will react to them on a gut instinct level; those ads have little to no effect at all, so the candidates might as well just give their money to early education programs and hope that will endear them to the little kids? I think she might want to rethink this article.

I am a little disappointed that the Christian Science Monitor picked this article for their op-ed section, although I am not surprised. There are very few women who get chosen to write for the op-ed section of any newspaper, so it is encouraging to see a woman picked, but it is discouraging that the article follows every stereotype about 'women's issues' and women's interest in politics.

Obama, Obama and Jay-Z

Kotecki TV for the Weeks of 4/7, 4/14 and 4/21

4/7/08

Mark Penn is resigned because his firm doesn’t agree with the campaign on most of the major policy issues. Which Kotecki says, might have something to do is why she is the underdog.

Obama tries to distance himself from Radio TalkShow host who described McCain as a warmonger. Kotecki breaks it down essay style.

Then Kotecki compares Penn’s stepping down as equivilent to Obama’s NAFTA/Canada error earlier on and that the distance from the Talk show host is equivilent to Bill Cunningham bashing Obama when introducing McCain. This election has gone on so long that the campaigns are stealing each other’s gaffs.

Notes: What starts out as substantive breaks down into a mistake comparison by the end of the show.

4/15/08

Kentucky congressman apologizes for calling Obama a snake oil salesman, and saying “that boy’s finger does not need to be on the button.” There was apparently some tension between the two during a national security simulation.

Obama apparently attended a party hosted by a Chicago real estate developer now on trial, to court an Iraqi investor. Obama denies attending any such event.

Bill Clinton is caught saying that he’s seen signs about not being bitter when he hasn’t actually seen any such signs.

Note: Lots of news on Obama today, mostly on non-substantive stuff such as what other people said about him and the sort of parties he may or may not have attended.

4/18/08

Bill Aires a member of the Weather Underground a group that put bombs near government buildings during Vietnam, is connected with Obama.

Kotecki says that the conclusion from this is that Vietnam can’t be escaped in any election.

Obama uses a Jay-Z dance move to describe how he shrugs off Clinton’s attacks. Kotecki notes that while it may gain him credibility with younger voters, it won’t help him with older blue collar voters that are traditionally associated with Clinton.

4/24/08

McCain asks the North Carolina party to stop using ads that use lines from Obama’s inflammatory pastor to attack gubernatorial candidates who have endorsed Obama.

Obama is also having a hard time attracting older voters, many of whom are loyal to Clinton.

Exciting primaries in Indiana and North Carolina coming up and caucuses in Guam, four delegates up for grab in the caucuses.

Election 2008: The Movie! Coming Soon.

NPR's Talk of the Nation for the week of 3/31

4/2/08

Three weeks until Pennsylvania, McCain draws up a list of possible VPs, Democrats don’t know what to do about Florida and Michigan still.

Hillary holds Pennsylvania with a strong lead over all other contenders including McCain. They are also holding a “dream ticket” contest on the show today.

Obama continues to mount a good fight in Pennsylvania despite the strong lead that Hillary holds in the state. They go on to examine how the votes might play out and how the race if effecting the party.

Polling data is discussed in depth regarding Pennsylvania polls in comparison to two different states. In this poll, in these three states, Hillary does significantly better then Obama when matched against Senator McCain. But according to the polls about half don’t care about race or gender in this race. Senator Obama has also handled the race issues better by about 10% of voters. Hillary still has the highest negative numbers of any of the candidates.



Kotecki TV for the Week of 3/31

3/31/08

Obama has compared the campaign to a good movie that has lasted too long, Hillary said she likes long movies. When asked what her favorite movie is Clinton responded: This one! Kotecki then points out the problematic tendencies of long movies, and splits apart Clinton’s possible meanings behind saying that this might mean that Clinton is simply in the race to entertain herself. He also digs into Clinton’s financial situation and debts related to the campaign for the rallies, catering and stage technicians.

Obama has exciting social engineering plans, using the presidency to help change American culture.

Notes: Clinton’s words get pulled apart, on non-substantive issues, and examined closely despite the fact that they have very little bearing on the race.

4/4/08

Obama is holding a raffle for young voters who help to register new voters, the winner wins a three on three basketball game with Obama.

Hillary Clinton accused of saying that Obama can’t win the election, she denied the claim, but hasn’t quiet said that he could win, only that a democrat will be in office in January. Kotecki toys with what exactly she means by saying that.

Superdelegates are worried about endorsing a candidate because it might effect their own electability.

Notes: Once again Clinton’s words are spliced apart for hidden meanings.

Sinbad Makes Headlines... Sort of...

Kotecki TV for the week of 3/24

3/25/08

Hillary’s gaff over sniper fire leads and takes the focus, in fact more time is spend on the fact that Sinbad (an Obama supporter) broke the story then on the actual story, although details and specifics were provided in terms of the quote that got her in trouble, and all of the contrary evidence.

Democrats plan to hammer McCain on his being in Iraq for 100 years, despite the fact that McCain was talking about a peaceful force there, like in Germany.

Notes: Gaffs, not substance lead again, there is some strategy on the part of the democrats and put into some fairly detailed context.

3/28/08

Puerto Rican government has endorsed Obama.

Kotecki puts up some statistics on how many Americans think Obama is a Muslim, (10%) and of those who’ve heard the stories about his inflammatory Pastor that number drops only to 9%. Kotecki then makes fun of Americans who still think that Obama is a Muslim and the lack of attacks on him for real issues.

McCain campaigned with Mitt Romney very happily in Salt Lake City, saying they are putting the past behind them.

Clinton's Pennsylvania victory gives campaign new life

The Christian Science Monitor
"Clinton's Pennsylvania victory gives campaign new life"
By Linda Feldmann
April 24th, 2008


Ms. Feldmann's article comes right after Senator Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania over Senator Barack Obama by 10% and addresses the fact that Clinton's win came just in time to give her campaign enough 'umph' to last until the convention.

The frame that Ms. Feldmann uses is very in-sync with the mainstream media's frame. The article actually frames Mrs. Clinton's win in two ways; the first frame was that Clinton had to win Pennsylvania by double digits to stay in the election, and Ms. Feldmann also framed Clinton's win in comparison with her win in Ohio and her the upcoming primary in Indiana.

Ms. Feldmann says that Clinton had to win this for a few reasons; first of she was running too far behind in delegates (not counting super delegates), and secondly part of her platform is that Obama can't win the bigger states and she once again proved this.

Indiana's race on May 6th, will be another important race for her to win according to the article because it has similar demographics to both Pennsylvania and Ohio.

The article also briefly mentions how Clinton's solid win has given the 300 unpledged super delegates more time to decide which candidate to back, which is good for Clinton because she is ahead in super delegates but not by a lot. The article gives a sentence explanation on super delegates, but implies a certain base level of how democratic primary politics work.

The next bulk of the article was dedicated to discussing different reasons that contributed to Clinton's win including Obama's comment about guns and God. The article assumed previous knowledge about Obama's gaffe. An interesting note that the article addresses is that Clinton won in a demographic that Obama usually dominates, white voters between the ages of 18 and 29. Another contributing factor is Hillary's strength when it comes to the economy because that is the number 1 issue to voters in PA.

I really like the last paragraph of the article that represented a frame that I haven't really seen among the media. Ms. Feldmann addresses the fact that the on going struggle between the two candidates might not be such a bad thing if the party can unite after a candidate is chosen.

In Pennsylvania alone, the party registered 326,000 new voters, some of them first time voters and others switching their registration from independent or Republican. If the party can unite in the fall and get over the bruised feelings from the primaries, the Democrats could be hard to beat.

Overall an interesting article.

From mistakes, Clinton has learned, adjusted

The Christian Science Monitor
From mistakes, Clinton has learned, adjusted
By Linda Feldmann
April 16th, 2008

The Christian Science Monitor has impressed me so far with their balanced, fact-based, well written and interesting articles that often break the frame that most of the media use, though are still within the context that a reader can understand. This article completely breaks the frame that surrounds Democratic Presidential hopeful, Senator Hillary Clinton. The article offers an alternative frame in which Clinton is a uniter rather than a divider. She is portrayed as a woman who has made mistakes but learns from them, as a person who cares deeply for her fellow human beings. She is portrayed as a hard worker who cares more about getting things done rather than getting credit for them and as someone who is held in great esteem by her colleagues and friends.

In my class at Wellesley College, Mass Media in American Democracy, we learned that often the media doesn't publish things that don't fit into the frame that already surrounds the event, person or idea but the Christian Science Monitor has done just that. Regardless of how you feel about Senator Clinton, I would recommend reading this article! I have previously mentioned how often it is easy to tell what a journalists opinion is regardless of whether or not their article is op-ed, and I believe that Miss Feldmann's article is surprisingly neutral despite the fact that her writing a piece that goes against the general consensus is probably an indication of her views.

'Change' campaigns: Can they deliver?

The Christian Science Monitor
'Change' campaigns: Can they deliver?
By Alexandra Marks
April 10th, 2008

All the candidates running for the presidential nomination have messages of change. Senator John McCain promises to clean up Washington's "spendthrift ways"; Senator Hillary Clinton wants to change "the failed policies and the wrong-headed priorities of this administration;" and the candidate whose campaign is based on his promise of change, Senator Barack Obama vows to change Washington so that it is more united and open to the voices of the average American. There have been many discussions in the media, both mainstream and alternative, about whether or not any of these candidates are genuine in their promises of change, and there have been many discussions about which candidate wants to bring about the 'right' kind of change, but Alexandra Marks' article offers a totally different frame. Miss Marks analyzes whether the change these candidates offer is actually possible.


Ms. Marks offers the context of past presidents who were able to usher in change, and the environment that allowed them to be successful. There have been relatively few presidents in the past century that have successfully ushered in change Marks states; The Roosevelts, John F. Kennedy and Reagan are the only four who have accomplished change. Not only were all these men great orators, but they also had the political skills to work around a slow and often difficult congress, and they also all had the political climate on their sides: the people of the US wanted change.

Marks cites different polls saying that about 80% of Americans want change; which means the political climate is good for whichever candidate wins the election.

Marks then prefaces the next section of her article with a quote from an expert that warns that it is impossible to know how effective a person will be as president, until they are actually in the Oval office. Marks notes that although both the Democratic candidates have touted themselves as the candidate of change their policies aren't that different from each other. Yet it is Obama who has captured the American people in their belief in his ability to bring about change.

Marks then goes through the different steps a president needs to be successful about bringing about change. First the candidate needs to have the oratory skills to win the hearts and minds of the American people; Obama has the clear advantage. They also need to be able to pass their bills through congress and it is here that Clinton has the advantage.

Miss Marks interviewed a professor from Brown University who says that Hillary doesn't have the grassroots support that is needed to bring about change. She also briefly notes that McCain is actually the candidate perceived as having the 'right experience' to be the new president.

The article ends though with the note that although Obama has the most ingredients to make him the candidate most likely able to bring about change because,

"He has a unique status as an outsider who also has Washington experience and he is someone who can inspire people,"

many people are still skeptical that, even with all those ingredients, he will be able to bring about substantial change.

Overall a very well written article. Often times it is easy to discern what the actual opinion of the journalist is, but I was unable to do so with Ms. Marks. The article didn't quite fall into the framing trap on the characters of the candidates like other newspapers. Most newspapers, I believe, would have focused much more strongly on Obama's message of change, wouldn't have mentioned McCain at all, and wouldn't have mentioned Hillary Clinton's promise of change because that doesn't fit with the frame the media has given her. I appreciate the efforts of this newspaper and author. Out of the three 'experts' cited, all were male.

Christian Science Monitor: Did Obama's Pastor Preach Hate?

The Christian Science Monitor
"Did Obama's Pastor Preach Hate?"
By Jane Lampman
March 28th, 2008

Jane Lampman's article on Rev. Jeremiah Wright, previous pastor to Democratic hopeful, Barack Obama, was the best I have seen on the topic. The article asks the question, "When does speaking out against injustices cross into hate speech?" and attempts to answer whether Rev. Wright's speech was hate speech or not.

The article assumes previous knowledge of the Reverend's controversial comments. However it does offer a bit of background as to why the comments are so controversial, saying that it is in part due to the close Democratic Primary and in part because the comments

Pose a stark question about America's cross-racial discourse.

The article goes on to quote Senator Hillary Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic Presidential nomination, who states that she would never have Rev. Wright as her pastor, and then the article interestingly enough quotes Mike Huckabee, who dropped out of the Republican race for their nomination, saying,

Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment, and you have to just say, `I probably would, too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder, had it been me.'

Although I admit that I know little of Mr. Huckabee, I was surprised by his comment.

Ms. Lampman goes on to quote people in the religious community who say that Rev. Wright's comments have been taken out of context and misinterpreted. For example, when Rev. Wright said, "God damn America," he was speaking to God's condemnation of acts of oppression. The article then goes on to give more context to the rest of the speech, that not even The Daily Show gave, although they are known for giving more comprehensive clips and sound bites.

The article offers some insight into the black churches of America, which helps to give even more context to the comments. It also offers a more complex view of Rev. Wright as a man who has seen his church grow from 87 members to over 10,000.

Overall a very balanced article that acknowledged the inappropriateness of Rev. Wright's comments while also presenting a different frame from the mainstream media's. Also, out of the four 'experts' interviewed in this article one of them was a woman. This article was also interesting because besides acknowledging the importance these comments potentially have on the Democratic presidential campaign, they avoided talking about Obama at all. I thought this was very appropriate because the attention the media has been giving to Obama about these comments is unfair; he didn't say them, and just because he went to Rev. Wright's church doesn't mean he agrees with the man on everything.

Rushing to Register? Limbaugh’s efforts not yet showing signs of big effects in Pennsylvania

The Christian Science Monitor
"Rushing to register? Limbaugh’s efforts not yet showing signs of big effects in Pennsylvania"
By Dante Chinni
March 27th, 2008

In the Christian Science Monitor on March 27th, there was a really interesting article that was different from the other articles I've read. Instead of being about the pressing issues of the campaign or even about the candidates themselves, this article was about a neoconservative radio show host's effort to sabotage the Democratic party by urging Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton instead of Barack Obama in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary. The reason? So that the Democratic party stays divided longer and gives the Republicans a greater advantage going into the actual election for President.

In PA you have to be a registered Democrat to vote in the primary, unlike some other states, and so far 51,000 people have switched to vote in the Democratic primary, and there are still three days left to register! Mr. Chinni, the author of the article, looked closer at this data and determined that if the switches came in heavily conservative areas they very well could be Limbaugh people, whereas if the switches came from more liberal areas their switch was most likely unrelated. The results were that about 23,000 of those switches were in counties that had previously voted for Bush, so were more conservative, an interesting find.

Despite all this, it is really hard to determine how much of an impact Limbaugh's open sabotage plan will have the election.

One possibility that the author didn't cover is that many of those switches could come from voters who don't want to elect another Republican after 8 years of a disastrous Republican President.

The article quoted two 'experts' who were both men, and the article itself was written by a man. The article had minimal framing and was purely presenting the facts.

The Daily Show: A Quite Week

The week of April 14th, 2008 has been a quiet week in terms of election news, but the Daily Show did cover Obama's recent infamous comment about the personality of western Pennsylvania.

Stewart opens the segment by saying that it is almost a mathematical certainty that Obama will go into the convention with more votes and more delegates, non super, than Hillary Clinton. And then he frames the recording of Obama by saying that it would take,

Some sort of egregious, self inflicted, undiplomatic, poorly recorded semi-truth by Obama.

He then plays a rather long clip of Obama's radio recorded voice saying,

You go into some of those small towns in Pennsylvania...the jobs have been gone
now for 25 years...they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy
to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment...

Jon Stewart, with his sarcastic and witty comments responds to this quote by saying that it is "Outrageous" because the people of Western PA don't turn to God and guns and mistrust of foreigners because of a downturn in the economy, rather it is the heart and soul of what they are made of. Essentially Stewart is agreeing with Obama's statement, and then he goes even further and says that he would hope that his president was elite or better than him, purposely changing the connotation that the word "elite" has in the American political sphere.

Stewart then plays clips from numerous different mainstream news stations that clearly misquote, misinterpret and exaggerate Obama's statement rather unfairly (they do this to Hillary's words all the time). Although it is frustrating to see Stewart blatantly support Obama, I commend him on trying to present a different frame, especially since the media is blatantly taking Obama's sentiment too far.

It is frustrating though when seconds later he played short clips of Hillary and tries to make her look untrustworthy and insincere. It is the first time that Stewart has clearly taken sides on the Democratic election although the past month has seen him becoming increasingly more favorable to Obama.

The Daily Show: Dick Move of the Week

Although not too much about the election on April 8th, 2008, The Daily Show does introduce a "Dick Move of the Week" segment which talks about how the Obama campaign was giving out free Dave Matthew's Band tickets at the same time that Bill Clinton was giving a speech on the same campus. It is interesting because although he calls it the 'Dick Move', the way he presents it is rather hilarious and incredulous. He doesn't make a judgement on the event really, and unlike a mainstream news show might do he doesn't talk about how it reflects on Obama as a candidate.

There was also a special section called "Back in Black: Celeb Endorsements" which is a special section by a correspondant on his show, Lewis Black. This segment made fun of the celebrity endorsments that happen. It was interesting because this was one of the first shows that actually mentioned John McCain (he recieved a celebrity nomination from a character on the Hills). There was an interesting Obama tilt. Out of about 7 or 8 celebrities quoted for endorsing one candidate or the other, they only showed one endorsing Hillary (Laura Linny), who also happened to be one of the two women shown (the other being Oprah, of course). Also for one of the celebrities, Stewart makes the claim that we shouldn't bother to listen to celebrities because what do they know? But then he shows a clip of the same celebrity sounding extremely intelligent while talking about real issues and why he supports Obama.

This show was one of the view that had a woman interviewed. Cokey Roberts was interviewed for her newly released book, "Ladies of Liberty" about the first ladies of young America.

The Daily Show: Barack's Bowling for Votes

The Pennsylvania primary is coming up in a little less than month, and Barack is moving around the state connecting with the 'Reagan Democratics' according to the Daily Show on April 1st, 2008. The Daily Show has consistantly gotten more and more openly in favor of Obama, I wonder if this has anything with the writers coming back? Impossible to say. But it would be interesting to know the gender rundown of The Daily Show's writers. That is not to say that the gender of the writers is directly in correlation to which candidate they support, although it is a possibility, but regardless it would be an interesting fact to know.

Anyways, in this episode Jon Stewart blatantly makes fun of the mainstream media's rather ridiculous framing of Barack Obama's gutterball while bowling in PA. He shows clips of the media framing this in terms of his masculinity, as well as undercurrents of racism, for example one anchor says something along the lines of, "He should stick to basketball". Stewart takes great delight in pointing out that Barack's bowling skills don't have any bearing on his ability to lead the country.

Although the show has been rather biased lately in favor of Obama, I commend the show for also making fun of the media's opinion that Hillary is hurting the democratic party by not dropping out. He played clips from at least 6 different mainstream nightly news shows that all were implying that Hillary should drop out of the race by a certain date because she is hurting the democratic party. It was funny because although all the clips had the same frame they had vastly different dates of when she should drop out by. Stewart says something to the effect of, "Oh no, there's too much democracy".




This episode was full of information on the upcoming 2008 Presidential election! Stewart also had one of his correspondants interview a 21 year old college student who also happens to be a super delegate. It was very interesting, but I wish they would have framed it differently. Instead of focusing on how cool it is for a young person to be involved in the democratic process of our country, they framed it in the sense that he wasn't representative of American youth (example, he like to listen to Celion Dion and his favorite movie was Love Actually). I wish they would have given more background; I would have liked to know how he got chosen to be a super delegate. It was nice though that the show took a tiny bit of time to talk about what a super delegate was, though the information they imparted about that was weak at best. This episode also had all men.

The Daily Show: Important Primaries

The week of March 10th, 2008 wasn't a huge week for coverage of the 2008 presidential election, although there was coverage of the Wyoming primary and the Mississippi primary briefly.



The Daily Show took a humorous approach to the Wyoming primary by having Sam Bee analyze the 'race' break down of the voters. Instead of using the typical breakdown (Black, White, Latino, etc) they used titles such as 'Rugged Outdoorsmen', 'Grizzled Old Coots', and 'Ornery Drifters' among others. Esentially The Daily Show was satirizing the media's frame that sometimes implies that certain candidates win using certain demographics only. More specifically I think they were using the fact that Wyoming is a mainly white, blue collar area, which is supposed to be Hillary's stronger demographic.

This episode was one of the first that I've seen with a woman being a integral part of the show, although Sam Bee was the only woman on the show.




On March 12th, 2008 Jon Stewart looked at the media's framing of the Mississippi primary. He showed clips from at least 5 different mainstream news shows that all had the anchor saying that the results of the Mississippi primary (Obama won by a lot) was no surprise. Stewart asks the question, "So that means it doesn't count?" Stewart then shows the delegate count:
Obama: 1598
Clinton: 1487
Differece: 111
and questions the media's frame that the election seems to be out of reach for Hillary. Again there on no women in this show. It is interesting to note that although March 13th, 2008 doesn't directly talk about the 2008 presidential election, there is a woman intereviewed and a special segement by a woman.

The Daily Show: Barack's Wright Response

On March 18th, 2008 the Daily Show addressed Presidential Hopeful, Barack Obama's pastor's controversial remarks about America. The clip Stewart played of Pastor Wright's remarks was longer than the one I saw on a mainstream news show, but the longer clip didn't really change the framing as it sometimes does on the show. Stewart didn't voice an opinion one way or the other about how this should or shouldn't affect Obama, but he did play numerous clips from mainstream media that showed their analysis of Pastor Wright's remarks, and he tried to frame it differently, using comedy. He brought an 'expert' on the show to have a 'dialogue' on race, and the language both Steward and his 'expert' used was really interesting.

Stewart also played a clip of Obama's response speech, which was extremely elequent. Stewart also opened the segment saying that although there had been whispers that Obama was a 'foreigner', there was good news because he's christian. This was really hilarious!

Like many of Steward's other shows, there were no women on this show.

"The Ultimate Last Final Showdown"

The Daily Show has gotten back into the swing of things since the writer's strike and on March 3rd, 2008 Jon Stewart interviewed Hillary Clinton! It was an interesting show because despite the fact that Stewart was interviewing Clinton the first segment of his show was called the "Ultimate Last Final Showdown (Unless Hillary Wins One or Both of the Larger States)" and although the title clearly makes fun of how the media frames each new primary, Stewart mainly focuses on how the candidates have been bashing each other as they criss-cross both Ohio and Texas before the primary tomorrow, March 4th, 2008. Stewart plays clips (with commentary) of both Clinton and Obama taking small jabs at each other; Clinton tries to insinuate that although Obama makes pretty speeches they lack substance and action and Obama questions Hillary's ability, using her vote for the Iraq war as an example.

I was very impressed because it Jon Steward's portrayal of the candidates was equal and he didn't seem to favor either candidate.

The interview with Hillary was really interesting and he asked her good questions, though he seemed to stay within the media's frame and he didn't ask her about actual actions she would take or concrete issues in Ohio or Texas. I really liked how Stewart talked about how Ohio is always courted during the elections but then is ignored once the candidate is in office, and what Hillary feels about that. She of course had a good answer. I also really liked how she said that regardless of who wins there will be a unified democratic party. Overall a wonderful interview!

The Daily Show: Trendspotting Youthquake

Finally The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is back after the writers strike! February 28th, 2008 featured news on Bush's trip to Africa, a section on the upcoming election and the importance of the youth vote, as well as an interview with Brian Williams from NBC Nightly News who hosted the recent Presidential debates between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Stewart's show is a hybrid between a comic show and an actual nightly news show, so it is a fun way to get the daily news.

The portion titled Trendspotting-Youthquake is a comedic look at the importance of the youth vote in the upcoming election and the people in the mainstream media who follow the trends among youth voters. Demetri Martin assembles a 'street team' to find out whats on the minds of this year's all important youth vote. The 'street team' consists of the five men and one woman who make up Jon Stewart's news team. The clip shows them interviewing young men and women in bars using 'youth language'. This segment pokes fun of the people who interview youth voters because it shows the interviewers as being rather stupid and trying to use 'street slang' to better relate to the youth. The men and women in the bar are clearly a bit offended. This segment also interviews a reporter from CBS News, Itay Hod, who has a video blog that focus on the youth voters.

This segment doesn't have a frame for the youth voters, but is merely poking fun at how youth are treated as a demographic. I thought the piece might at least mention the frame that Obama has all the youth voters, but that wasn't mentioned at all, and when the candidates names were mentioned they were both mentioned equally.

Although this isn't different from the general trend on the Jon Stewart show, there were only two women in the whole segement; one of the street team, Sam Bee, and the other was a young woman in a bar who was interviewed.

The interview with Brian Williams was interesting because he is clearly not allowed to voice an opinion on politics, but Jon Stewart asked about Hillary Clinton's recent observation that she always gets asked the question first in the debates, and it was interesting because Williams said that in general it had to do with the fact that she was getting more press and news.

Overall an interesting show!

Ferraro, Power and Spitzer all try to out talk each other

National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation for the week of March 3rd, 2008.
3/12/08

The latest on the presidential race, since its Wednesday, Ferraro’s comments on Obama and Obama’s win in Mississippi lead. His win in Mississippi was split along highly racial lines which is worrisome for the Democratic Party. They also discuss how Hillary Clinton has seemed to do a good job of winning back White votes. The Pennsylvania primary is coming up, where Hillary has a large lead right now, but Indiana and other states are coming up.

They also discussed the role that advisors have in impacting the candidates and how people involved with the campaigns can influence how voters look at candidates. They compare it to Donna Brazil’s resignation from Michael Dukakis’ campaign for her focus on George Bush’s alleged girlfriend.


Politico.com's Playbook TV with James Kotecki for the week of March 10th, 2008.

3/10/08

Synopsis: Barack Obama’s win in the Wyoming caucuses leads, he makes fun of the significance since its only a win by two delegates, so no real change in the delegate map, but he does concede it gives Obama momentum as he heads into Mississippi.

Newspapers are reporting on the Clinton campaigns suggestion that a Clinton-Obama ticket is the way to go, they are reporting its simply a way to weaken the Obama campaign despite his current delegate lead. Kotecki then ponders what Hillary would be like as VP, and compares her to Cheney in being a strong foreign policy VP.

Notes: Obama’s win is mocked a bit in the beginning and the role of the media in analyzed in the VP discussion going on, and Hillary is compared to the powerful but cunning Cheney.

3/13/08

Synopsis: The Eliot Spitzer scandal dominates.
Geraldine Ferraro’s comments that Barack Obama is only where he is because he is a black man, she hasn’t apologized, but resigned from the Clinton campaign because she didn’t want to hurt the campaign, and that the Obama campaign was twisting her words.

Romney is trying to work his way into the VP spot, to which Kotecki has a field day mocking Romney’s new role in attempting to grovel his way into the spot.

The teasers for next time are Hillary’s experience as first lady, and lastly he shows pictures of famous people admitting their mistakes, among which is President Clinton.

Notes: Ferraro’s comments dominate the campaign news, while Romney is made fun of and McCain is portrayed to be enjoying his new found power over his former rivals.

Florida, Michigan and Ohio, oh my!

National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation for the week of March 3rd, 2008.

3/3/08

The discussion focuses around Latino voters and were their allegiances lie, right now Clinton is who Latino have shown up for in droves. Their guest, first outlines that Latinos are not a uniform group, and that you have White Latinos and Afro-Latinos from the Caribbean. He thinks that many Latinos have not voted for Obama because of racism to some extent, and he believes that race plays a role in the selection of the candidate. Younger candidates are more willing to vote for Obama, but the older generation is less wiling to do so the guest argues. He believes it is a racism problem, which partially comes because there is little social mobility for Afro-Latinos within the Latino community. There is then a guest who comes to defend Latinos and argues that there are many times when Latinos have supported African-American candidates.

3/6/08

There is some context given to the current situation on Iraq and each candidates stance on the issue. A discussion then follows of what the next president will have to deal with, and how the election may be impacted by this issue.

The Clinton and Obama camps stances are laid out on Florida and Michigan and possible re-dos in both states. Discussions are held with political observers in both Florida and Michigan. The differences between caucuses and primaries are examined as well as how each might play a different role in choosing a nominee.

Politico.com's Playbook TV with James Kotecki for the week of March 3rd, 2008.

3/3/08

Less then one day from the March 4th primary with Clinton leading, although Kotecki notes that despite her lead she still needs to do better in order to capture more then half the delegates. Kotecki recommends taking a pro-Corn hole stance to bump up numbers.

Obama is the second story with his controversy on NAFTA and that his stance on protectionism in Obama’s rhetoric was campaign motivated and not his real stance on NAFTA. The advisor’s is defending the memo he wrote.

Lastly, the controversy of Hillary’s comments on 60 Minutes about how Obama is not a Muslim “As far as I know” Kotecki goes on to make the connection that Hillary thinks SNL is an accurate news source since she refered to it in her last debate, she was also on SNL joking about how here campaign was going well, Kotecki goes on to make convoluted connections to make the point that people are making great leaps in order to achieve the idea that Hillary was attempting to label Obama as a Muslim. Its funny, but confusing, way of making fun of those who take Hillary to literally over a few words. It also makes fun of Obama for potentially being a “Muslim sleeper cell terrorist” if Hillary is right.

Teasers for the next show include McCain’s economic platform, and a promise to not spread rumors that McCain’s office is actually a bordello of female lobbyist, unless you’ve already heard something about that.

Notes: Kotecki starts by pointing out that Hillary is ahead in Ohio, but quickly moves on to the point that even if she is, it may not make a real difference in delegates. The Obama piece is short and somewhat critical, but spends more time making fun of Canadians then anything else. On the Hillary controversy Kotecki attempts to make fun of those taking Hillary Clinton to seriously, but in doing so just confuses the watcher, and doesn’t really say much in terms of interpreting the issue, but uses a lot of SNL references in the process.


3/6/08

Synopsis: John McCain seals the deal by getting the endorsement from the President, but Kotecki interprets it as not so much as a win but given the low approval ratings of the president might actually hurt McCain with democrats. McCain also asked the President to campaign for it as much as his busy schedule allows, Kotecki frames this in the same light that Bill Clinton was “too busy” to campaign for Al Gore, followed by video of Bill Clinton gardening.

Michigan and Florida are demanding their delegates be seated, where Clinton “kind of” won both contest, neither candidate campaigned in either state, and Obama wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan. This may all lead to a do-over, to which Kotecki jokes we should bring Romney out of retirement to give it another go.

In Ohio super delegates are holding back on their endorsements until the candidates line out plans to protect American johs. Kotecki compares it to the Star Wars Trade Federation’s power, to exert their will on government policy, hopefully without the pod racing.

Teasers include questions over Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy experience.

Notes: John McCain leads for once, though the President doesn’t fare so well. The Michigan and Florida story jabs at Hillary for her “kind of” wins, and the teaser questions her foreign policy experience without providing any details as to how the story leans.

Bloomberg is out but Nader is in

National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation for the week of February 25th, 2008.

2/26/08

Opens with a discussion of the hope versus experience debate going on between Obama and Hillary, and ask, are we focusing to much on personality and not on issues. The host them invites listeners to call in and tell their most important issue and how they feel on that issue. Health care is the first issue they discuss, and the difference between them, differentiating between the two plans is Clinton’s mandates, and Obama’s lack of them except for children. They mention most health care economist believe in Clinton’s, and then how the two candidates have attacked each other on these issues. They discuss Clinton’s flip-flops on Iraq. They go on to discuss issues of foreign and domestic policy and how the two candidates are growing closer together on a variety of issues.

Politico.com's Playbook TV with James Kotecki for the week of February 25th, 2008.

2/25/08

Ralph Nader is running again! Obama called Nader heroic, Hillary hoped his run would be nothing more then a passing fancy. Nader said only he had the backbone to make sure Republicans don’t win. As Kotecki pointed out, given his past success it’s a surprise Nader doesn’t run every time he can, oh wait, he does.

Obama calls Republicans who support him “Obamakins,” Kotecki has a field day making fun of the label possibilities with Obama-martial law and Obama-rama.

Lastly Chuck Hagel has not yet endorsed John McCain. There is speculation he might run on the bottom half of an Independent Bloomberg ticket. To which Kotecki then suggest Ralph Nader might need a running mate.

As a finishing note Kotecki pumps stories on Politico.com pointing out the obvious that racist and sexist attacks from Republicans might not be effective. And when signing off, Kotecki promises to always to take it to the Obam-maximum.

2/28/08
Synopsis:
Michael Bloomberg decides not to run, and it is compared to the loss of the planet Alderan in Star Wars for east coast yuppies.

The second story is the use of Barak Obama’s middle name of Hussain by the Tennessee Republican Party in press release about Obama and Israel, This did not go over well with the Republican National Committee, who promised a public rebuke if it happened again, while the Tennessee party stood by its words and said they had a duty to inform the Republican base.

Super delegate and Georgia Congressman John Lewis has switched his allegiance from Hillary to Obama, saying he wanted to be on the side of the people. But seriously, who wants to be on the wrong side of history Kotecki asks. Lastly the teaser for next show is a story about Hillary’s plan to cut child poverty.

Notes:

While covering the election from several standpoints, Obama does lead this week, with his story about the use of his middle name and the super delegate switch, in fact the only direct mention of Hillary Clinton as separate from Obama is the last three seconds of the show with the teaser for next time.

Lobbyist and Primaries abound

National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation for the week of February 18th, 2008.

2/18/08

Castro’s stepping down leads, the story does include comments from the presidential candidates in general. Clinton’s position on Cuba has been similar to Bush’s because she wants to win Florida in the general election, while Obama has called for more open travel to Cuba by Cuban-American families and has indicated a willingness to talk with countries such as Cuba that the US has not been on good footing. As always, the conversation included a scholarly guest and calls from the general public

2/21/08

The McCain article from the New York Times tying lobbyist Vicky Eismen whom it is alleged he had an affair with leads. The host questions whether or not there is a firm tie to the lobbyist and the guest, an NPR editor for the, says there is not, and that there is no firm tie to any wrong doing. They discuss the timing, how it might have played earlier in the primary season, versus now when it is hurting him now as the presumptive nominee. They discuss the fairness of the piece, and the rallying effect it may have on those who have not favored McCain beforehand.

Identity politics is next on the agenda, discussing how people rally around those with whom they most identify, and vote for them based on that identity instead of issues. Listeners are invited to email and call in as always. Stanley Fish, an online columnist for the New York Times is the guest. They discuss Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton and the identities that both of them have and how this effects how voters are drawn to them.

Politico.com's Playbook TV with James Kotecki for the week of February 18, 2008.

2/19/08

The Wisconsin Primary leads, with splices of internet website jokes inter-spliced with reporting on how McCain is expected to widen his lead on Huckabee, and Hillary is expected to do better then expected. Obama has come under fire for his health care plan, and a promise to take general funds in an election. The “plagerism” claim is also talk about, as Obama apparently used that was from a Deval Patrick. Obama admits he should have given credit to Patrick for the line.

Next the Hawai’i caucus was talked about. There are only twenty delegates at state James Kotecki points out, while making fun of grass skirts and Spam. However, Chelsea Clinton has been campaigning there despite Obama’s strong lead. Kotecki did point out that if you thought he might be awake for the 1:30 AM results when they came in, you must be coco-nuts.

2/22/08

The NYT story on John McCain’s alleged affair with a young lobbyist leads, or at last a song version of it does, by singer/songwriter/host James Kotecki. John McCain denied the story, or as Kotecki put it “but you say she’s just a friend, oh oh, you say she’s just a friend.” The NYT was then attacked for running the story.

Another Obama/Hillary debate in Texas, that was also shown on Univsion, Kotecki noted that the exciting accent by co-host Jorge Ramos was the only thing new about the debate. Despite Hillary’s uphill challenge, it was a calm debate, but Hillary, said “not change you can believe, but change you can Xerox” which Kotecki commented, “not only did that joke suck (the oxygen out the room)” but that they may not have been in opposition.

Lastly, in 1995 Obama met with two people associated with leftist terrorist organizations, as a part of his run for the state senate, a much different approach then he’s been known for taking recently.

For Clinton and Obama, next six weeks are critical

The Christian Science Monitor

"For Clinton and Obama, next six weeks are critical"

By Ariel Sabar

March 13th, 2008

The author Ariel Sabar, of the Christian Science Monitor, has done a really solid job of writing a really balanced article that outlines the next six weeks for the Democratic party and the two candidates. There is no primary until April 22nd when the delegate rich state Pennsylvania has their primary, and between now and then might be the most important time for the two candidates.

Ms. Sabar says that both candidates will try to "mold perceptions" that they are the most likely to succeed and have the upper hand. The candidates are also trying to frame the race in their favor, for example Obama's camp is pointing out that he has won the most delegates, as well as the most states, including states that will be a "battleground" with McCain. Where the Clinton campaign is claiming that she has won all the big states and is stated as most likely to win in Pennsylvania, which would give her a large boost in delegates. The next paragraph is rather deceptivly simple in the wealth of information that it conveys, and for that reason I have decided to quote it:

Perhaps more important, analysts say, are the nearly 800 elected officials and party leaders known as superdelegates who may well tip the race; the ordinary Americans whose poll responses journalists use to gauge shifts in political momentum; and the Democratic leaders who will decide whether and how to proceed with do-overs of the primaries in Michigan and Florida, which had been stripped of their delegates because they moved up their contests in violation of party rules.

It was interesting to read the second phrase in this paragraph that mentions the role of the journalists forecasting of the election and the power they have to sway the election. It was phrased quite unassumingly!

The article is very good at avoiding any bias towards either candidate, even in subtle language that will subliminally frame a candidate a certain way. But at the end of the article the real message Ms. Sabar seems to be trying to get across is a warning to the democrats against waiting too long to decide who will be the candidate.

"The potential for one side to feel that the other has stolen the nomination is really strong right now," says Dr. Aistrup of Kansas State. "The result of that in November is that it turns a pretty strong probability of a Democratic victory into a situation where John McCain is very likely to win."

The Spitzer Fiasco

For those of you living under a rock, the news of the Eliot Spitzer sex scandal, and his subsequent resignation, have been the talk of the circuit this week. The New York Times broke the story on Monday (Affidavit: Client 9 and Room 871) which identified Gov. Spitzer as "Client 9" from a detailed 47-page FBI affidavit concerning an online prostitution ring.

In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times "Critic's Notebook" entry entitled "Spitzer scandal makes a perfect news storm," Mary McNamara describes the event as every reporter's dream story:

"They may be a journalist's five favorite words: Governor linked to prostitution ring. Now that's a TV crawl promising a very good week for everyone (except, of course, for the governor's family)."

McNamara goes on to describe how the drama and theater of the story, coupled with the high-profile politician, simplicity of the story, and even "the opportunity to talk about sex and still look professional" heightened its attractiveness to journalists, newspapers, and (especially) television news outlets. This description of the perfect news story resonates strongly with the ideas we've developed – due to its simplicity, drama, and titillation component, but also because it fits into a well-established journalistic frame of political corruption on a basic level.

In in daily "Post Political Hour" response and commentary feature with politics reporters, The Washington Post has explored the potential impact of the story on the 2008 presidential campaign. Spitzer was a superdelegate in the Democratic party, and had endorsed Clinton (Blog Post) in May of 2007.

On Tuesday, March 11, reporter Michael Shear responded to a question regarding the story's effect on Clinton, beyond her loss of one superdelegate vote:

"The broader question is interesting too: does the prospect of a new sex scandal remind people of the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair and make them want to run the other way?"

On the other hand, Thursday, March 13's coverage, reporter Lois Romano downplays any significant connection:

"I don't think it will have any impact on the presidential race whatsoever. Everyone is so focused on the presidential, that people are trying to create tenuous links. Spitzer's behavior is outrageous- but its his own. No one can fault anyone else."

It will be interesting to see whether the Spitzer scandal and resignation will enter into the campaign dialogue over the next week. It's hard to see Obama attempting to capitalize, since he's run as an ethics- and change-oriented politician promising a new kind of politics. However, the same could have been said about Eliot Spitzer.

In Ohio primary, campaign hinges on NAFTA

"In Ohio primary, campaign hinges on NAFTA"
Amanda Paulson

February 26th, 2008

The article is written in Dayton, Ohio and begins with a reference to the troubles in 1993 when NAFTA was passed. Ohio has been greatly affected economically and many blame NAFTA for the loss of jobs. Since 2001 Ohio has lost 225,000 manufacturing jobs and as the Monitor states, “…NAFTA is an easy target.” The article discusses the techniques the candidates use to attract supporters while also trying to tack blame on their opponent.

The article is interesting because it quotes an economist from Cleveland State University saying, “It's nice to blame the bogeyman, rather than the failed business strategies of Ford, GM, or Chrysler," which implies that its not wholly the governments fault that there has been a huge loss of jobs.

The article continues to quote citizens who are struggling with loss of their jobs and aren’t getting hired. It also quotes a forklift operator who is suspicious of the Clinton name, “I heard on the radio that she’ll fight hard for unions. But you didn't do it. You didn't say anything to Bill back then. Now it's too late. The only thing we're good at exporting anymore is jobs.” This goes against a quote from a similar New York Times article that quotes people from Ohio in favor of Hillary because of her association with Bill.

This article ends with an expert saying that Obama has an edge because his name isn’t Clinton, but that really people will choose based on personality. Despite this talking about NAFTA is very important because “These are major issues, and the people are blaming their government for not only the loss of their job but also their inability to pay their mortgage and the loss of their homes...NAFTA matters.”

Overall the article was relatively unbiased, though it did imply a slight advantage to Obama over Clinton. The one interesting thing about the article was that it quoted six different people three were citizens and three were 'experts', which was very equal. But all the people quoted were men, I though that was a very interesting phenomenon.

The only thing about this article that disappointed me was that it was very into the horse race aspect of the campaign, and talked more about what people thought of the respective candidates than what the candidates positions were on NAFTA. The article also assumed previous knowledge about what NAFTA is and means.

Albright & Colbert on the New News

After a brief hiatus, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report returned on Tuesday with the usual political satire we've come to love. During the end of her interview, though, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright expressed her impression of current politics and the role of Jon Stewart's show:

"I'm also a professor, and I'm excited about how involved young people are with this election, I think it's phenomenal. What you're doing is also phenomenal ... I know where people get their news!"

I found this comment quite interesting and relevant to what we've discussed so far in class. While this might have been said partially in jest, it is easy to believe that Albright is acknowledging the unique way in which The Daily Show has positioned itself in the political news landscape. She might have been praising Stewart for the role the show has played in promoting a "smart discourse" among a younger audience.

Next, on "The Word" segment of The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert addresses the New York Times article which broke the John McCain lobbyist story. He begins by poking fun at the original article's title: For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk. The article is breaking a scandal, of course, so it should have a much catchier title – and furthermore, the word "sex" isn't even mentioned once in the article! Colbert includes criticism that the story is too long – "it goes on for nine pages!" – and is generally bringing to light the average news consumer's need for short, flashy snippets about sex scandals at the expense of detailed, contextualized articles.

During the remainder of the segment, Colbert references the influence of the "blog-o-sphere" on the news cycle as agents that amplify "internet whispers" into giant news stories that become "true" simply because of their immense coverage. All-in-all, one rarely realizes the amount of Colbert's show which uses satire to focus specifically on the state of America's changing media environment. Together with Stewart's companion Daily Show, The Colbert Report gives the viewer some much-needed perspective, if only viewed through the right lens.

(Content taken from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report, aired 2008-02-27 at 2300 and 2330. Quotes are approximate.)

Obama Rose. Clinton slid fast. Why?

My first ever blog, how exciting! Reporting on my mainstream news source, the Christian Science Monitor, a nationally distributed paper that despite being a non-religious paper has its roots in the Christian Science Church (No, this is not the church of Tom Cruise, that's Scientology!).

On the front page of the Christian Science Monitor webpage, the headline reads, "Obama Rose. Clinton Slid Fast. Why?" Below the headline is a picture of Obama surrounded by adoring fans snapping pictures and asking for autographs. In the first paragraph the article says, "Senator Obama has gone on a tear, winning 10 straight primaries and caucuses, and forcing Senator Clinton's back to the wall." Despite this kind of horserace language the article is refreshingly unbiased and filled with reliable sources. The article quotes a number of experts in the field including professors, as well as a number of people actually employed by the candidates themselves.

The article sites the Clinton campaign team's failure to have a plan B if Hillary didn't have the election in the bag after Super Tuesday(Which John McCain ended up having!). The article than looks at Obama's campaign team as an ideal way to run a campaign, quoting Galston, a senior fellow of governance at the Brokkings Institution in Washington as saying, "People are going to be writing about his campaign for a long time, as a textbook of how to take advantage of changing circumstances – and to leverage your strengths while muting your weaknesses."

The article goes on the ask the important question, will this failure or success of a campaign hurt or help the respective candidates and is it indicative of the kind of president they will be. The question is not decisively answered with, "probably not". The article wraps up with a warning that it is far too early to call the race nows, citing the primaries of Ohio, Texas and Penn. as deciding factors.

Overall a very impressively unbiased article!




from the February 22, 2008 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0222/p01s05-uspo.html
Obama rose. Clinton slid fast. Why?
Poor planning for post-Feb. 5 races tripped up the Clinton camp, analysts say.
By Linda Feldmann Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Week 2 Post

NPR: Talk of the Nation 2/12/08

Still more then six months away from the election the media is under fire for its coverage of the campaign so far. Mostly the public faults it for its lack of coverage on the issues. A variety of guest involved in the media and those who study the media were involved in the conversation and spoke throughout the piece which ran. The campaign was the largest story of 2007, and has been the topic of half the stories so far in 2008. Patterns of bias were discussed, as well as 24-hour news outlets and the types of stories being put out. As always, guests were invited to call in and provide their comments and question. The piece ran a half an hour long.

2/14/08

There were no stories highlighting the presidential campaigns today, or the election, at all. Instead it focused on Valentine’s Day mix-tapes and a new Encyclopedia of African Americans, romance in film and the death of Steve Gerber, creator of “Howard the Duck.”

Playbook TV 2/11/08

Tough times for Hillary Clinton as she looses small, but numerous states in the primaries and Obama gains momentum, and looks to be ahead in upcoming states. As a result there is a shakeup in the Clinton campaign as the Campaign Manager Patty Doyle is replaced by Maggie Williams.

Huckabee responds to criticism that his numbers on delegates don’t add up, to which he responded, “he didn’t major in math, he majored in miracles.” With a reference to Monty Python the host then reported that Huckabee had then gone on to win the Louisiana primary, thought other Politico reporters do not believe it will slow down the McCain campaign.

NBC is done apologizing for comments a reporter made about Chelsea Clinton’s work for her mother’s campaign was similar to being pimped out. As a result Clinton has threatened to pull out of an MSNBC debate, and as a result plans to nickname McCain the “MacDaddy” had to be scrapped.

There were also plugs for interviews with both Clinton and Obama, and jokes on Ron Paul’s scaled back campaign so that be can focus on re-election to congress.

2/14/08

Clinton’s lagging campaign leads, one idea to boost her campaign is to try to get Michigan and Florida delegates to count at the convention after they were stripped of their delegates after moving their primaries too early.

The rest of the show focused on steroid use in baseball and the latest on Roger Clemens hearings on the hill, and the latest in the saga of Ohio Senator Larry Craig and the allegations about solicitations for gay sex in a public bathroom.

Week 1 Post

NPR: Talk of the Nation 2/4/08

The show features a conversation on the Republican nominee and the rise of John McCain and the impact that might have on the race. Ralph Reed, former executive director Christian Coalition discussed the various nominee choices and what each of them meant to social conservatives. He discusses how McCain seems to fail the test for many traditional conservatives. Senior Editor for The Atlantic Monthly, and blodder, Ross Daffa also joined the conversation to provide some historical context for the election and the Republican Party as well.
The show focused heavily on McCain as the front-runner and his lack of appeal to conservatives. The commentators featured spent time discussing other media coverage of the candidates and the role of the media in their campaigns as well.

Afterwards the show provided time for listeners to call in and weigh in on the Republican nominee and how they feel about choices they have this election year. The callers had a variety of issues, discussing the various contenders and their feelings about them. The callers were asked questions by the show’s host.

The show spend a solid 30 minutes having an in depth discussion with the two guest and callers.

The second part of the show discusses the role of the word “change” in elections with another expert. Historical context was provided for the word in past elections and how it had come to be co-opted by political parties to capture independents. They also discussed the role of it in the 2008 campaign, particularly with the Obama campaign.

The show once again brought in callers and emailers to discuss the topic and how they viewed the word, particularly in this campaign. The callers referenced Obama and the election extensively.

A solid 15 minutes was spent on this discussion.

2/7/08

The political divide among democrats over Obama and Clinton, as well as Romney’s departure from the race.

An interview is held with a married couple who are split between the two democratic options and how it has split their family along different political lines. The bottom line is that they will end up voting for the democratic nominee. The senior editor for Slate.com also commented on the divisive nature of the election and the way in which it’s dividing along family lines such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver. Specifically she references patterns among men and women over candidates, and black women and white men towards Obama. Splits are occurring along Latino and black communities as well. The republican side does not have a gender gap however despite the split. The extended period of uncertainty is also discussed as the primary season drags on, at least on the Democratic side.

Callers were then invited to call and describe their experiences with inter-family divides over the election. The commentator and guest then also discussed how to deal with such animosity over the election within families. In particular religion and politics have been problematic with the role of candidates like Mitt Romney complicating many discussions over the election. The role of kids and their beliefs also was discussed. The election has also brought families together over candidates that they never thought they would because of the way that the Republican nominee has broken down, or the democratic.

Then the end of the Mitt Romney campaign was discussed. A long clip, running a minute and a half, was played of Romney’s concession speech was played, where he defended his need to quiet because it would be helping the democrats and surrendering to terror. Joining host Neal Conan is NPR’s political editor Ken Ruden who discussed the problems that Romney had had, winning only smaller states on Super Tuesday after splitting the vote with Huckabee, as well as the problem that this presents to some social conservatives who don’t like McCain. There was also a question as to what is done with remaining campaign funds for candidates that drop out. Other questions about the nominee process and such were also asked and answered. A trivia question was also asked about the first candidate to drop out in the 1968 presidential race. (It was George Romney. Mitt Romney’s father.)

Lastly the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was discussed, where Romney made his concession speech, and John McCain tried to give a unifying speech in the wake of that withdrawal. The story featured a long clips of the speech that McCain gave, on several different occasions, addressing his role as the front runner, his absence from CPAC the previous year, his conversation with Romney earlier that day, and his position on immigration. The clip also included reactions from the crowd during the speech.



Playbook TV 2/4/08

Pre-Super Tuesday, reports a tight race on the Democratic side with Clinton with a slight edge, however. Then the commentator makes fun of the unpredictable nature of the democratic side of the race.

A quick flip through the Republican nominees gives them each a couple seconds on the screen with a picture of them campaigning. It focused a bit on Romney’s attacks on McCain. He then references a Politico reporter’s story on McCain’s lead and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum’s campaigning against McCain despite the fact that McCain campaigned for Santorum in 2006.

The commentator made fun of Hillary for plugging her town hall meeting on the Hallmark channel at the last debate and compared it to Obama holding a debate on Spike TV.

Lastly, quick references to Kennedy endorsements for Obama.

2/5/08

Super Duper Mega Ultra Fricken Huge Gargantuan Tuesday, as James Kotecki put it. He talks about the primaries in 24 states, particularly in California, mentioning the leaders, home states for each candidates and plugging Politico’s campaign coverage.

McCain is expected to lock up things, while the democrats will continue to slug it out due to the different structure of Democratic and Republican nominee processes. He discusses the importance Pennsylvania could take on due to the splitting of votes among Democrats instead of the take all methods of Republicans.

Lastly, P.Diddy’s new “Go Vote” slogan for this campaign as opposed to his “Vote or Die” slogan in the last campaign. Diddy will not be endorsing a candidate, but he believes the election to be important.

2/6/08

Buzz kill Wednesday, the day after Super Tuesday, realizing there is still along way to go. Hillary took California despite polls yesterday saying otherwise, she took eight states to Obama’s 13 states. He then referenced Hillary’s win in Mass. despite numerous important endorsements for Obama there. He then sights Tim Russet as saying that Obama may just have edged out Hillary on the delegate count. Also there was a reference to a Hillary win in American Samoa and Obama in Alaska.

On the Republican side the results were slightly more definitive with McCain taking home nine states, including the large ones. Romney did take California though, and seven other states, and Huckabee did well in the bible belt, which was expected to help John McCain by taking votes away from Romney. McCain was strong in the lead with delegates.

Ron Paul also did well in Montana coming in second to Romney.

The next primaries and causes coming up were mentioned as well, while poking fun of the states holding primaries that day as well.